Global Climate Change

[Avatar]

I just think that the issue is far more wide-reaching than mere warming, and that's what it seems all the argument is about. But maybe even I should look for a new term that encompasses the destruction of natural habitats through pollution and development and mining and whatnot.

My point is always that it doesn't matter whether or not it's getting hotter...what matters is that we are having a deleterious effect on the environment thanks to our actions.

Will that change the climate? Yes, in some ways it can...deforestation for example will effect weather patterns. But maybe global eco-system alteration is better.

--A

[ParanoiA]

There is absolutely no security interest in getting off of oil. We export oil (to 70 countries--buy it from 90 countries). Sure, we import more than we export, but we're not even drilling for all the oil we have here. We could get off foreign oil if we wanted to. It just doesn't make economic sense to do so. Thus, we don't.

I don't agree. I think there is one hell of a security risk in one's blood supplied by external blood banks, knowing that type of blood will run dry, eventually. Like I said before. That's not an energy plan. That's energy hope.

Granted, we could probably produce our own fossil fuel energy supply entirely independently and would be better than nothing, but the security problem also lies in oil's finite existence. We're not even sure we won't be fighting off invasion from other countires, decades from now, thirsting for oil and coal as they finally get used up.

The more important side of our energy issue is "renewables". The second most important is internal production of those renewables. Renewable energy sourcing means no finite resource to fight and claw over - just good ole economics and free trade.

Internal generation does matter for national security though because we don't want to be coerced by foreign powers. We know the value of independence because we exploit it all the damn time - sanctions anyone? Sanctions don't work on nations that don't need nothin' from nobody. Look at how many times we've invoked trade sanctions trying to manipulate governments to our will, or the united nations.

Yes, we have plenty of examples of how our country's life blood dependency on external supply of a finite resource in the hands of enemies is a bad, bad idea. We get our oil from nice guys too, but we depend on those who hate us as well.

Presidents have been talking about getting off foreign oil since at least Nixon. Maybe earlier. There has been no threat to our security in all those decades by purchasing cheap oil from the Middle East. In fact, one could argue that because we buy cheap oil, it has enabled our economy to grow, and a strong economy is the single biggest factor in building up our military to the power it is now. A strong economy is more important to national security than where we get our oil.

I don't believe the above sentiment is true. I wish those presidents had been successful. We might not be in the middle east with our military machines otherwise. I would argue that being dependent on oil is why we give a crap about Iraq and Afghanistan and do not give the same crap for Somolia.

Oil has been threatening our national security for a long, long time.


Edit: Oh, forgot to mention, I can't watch videos here at work so don't think I ignored your links. I do plan on watching when I get home and get a minute. I didn't know we imported that much oil, and there's bound to be other things I didn't know too, should be interesting...

[Orlion]

Orlion, you're right that there is warming due to other factors. The urban heat island effect causes local temperature increases around cities (where most of our thermometers are located). But that's entirely the point here: it contradicts global warming due to CO2 emissions. Unless we plan on tearing down all our cities, there's not much we can do about that.

The urban heat island effect has nothing to do with pollution. It's the change that happens when you turn trees and dirt into concrete sidewalks and asphalt roads. These hold more heat. Also, our buildings produce heat as a by-product of air conditioning, electric lighting, moving people up and down in elevators, etc. It's not pollution, but rather entropy. Again, there is little we can do about this, since we can't make our machines 100% efficient.

Just so long as we are on the same page

[Vraith]

I'm not sure that the article proves what it says it proves.
It seems to me that the co2 doesn't stay excited permanently, it cools and releases as well. The total in and out should stay constant: it is the time that the heat stays that raises temp...I think you'd only notice a shift in the radiation [and that temporarily] if watching at a point in time of a sudden big change in co2 content.
[this is a little silly, but when it's 20 degrees outside, the walls of my house radiate heat at the same rate whether the furnace is on or off at a given time.]

I also wonder if watching one spot in the Pacific controls variables that would invalidate the experiment, or excludes data that is necessary to actually prove something [that's a real "I wonder," not an accusatory "I wonder."]

[Zarathustra]

Vraith, that seems like a valid objection. I'm no scientist, but I'll take a stab at it.

If our GHGs are increasing (and they are), and the temperature of the planet is increasing (well, that's the claim), then we're not talking about a one-time event that would show a temporary decrease in escaping heat, and then stabilize at this higher temperature. The amount of heat escaping to space would necessarily have to be decreasing; that energy has to come from somewhere.

If the out-going radiation is constant, then the temperature due to the greenhouse effect has to be constant, even granting you this hypothetical one-time rise. And if it's constant, then there is no crisis. We're supposed to be worrying about a continuing rise, extending to the future. (However, as Orlion pointed out, it can be rising for other reasons not related to increased GHGs. But even Phil Jones admitted that there has been no global warming for 15 years.)

[finn]

I suppose some might expect to get a good scientific article form a political journal, but I am not amongst them. American Luddite again Z? (polish, polish, polish).

This is comment on issues from a political rag that basically serves to provides torches to the mob. You are cherry picking the cherry pickings and trying to pass it off as a serious examination of the science, which its patently not.

You are of course, as you have pointed out before, free to litter debate with this trash but I really hope posters are becoming savvy enough to question the credibility of the information and the motivation of those providing it! Meanwhile I too have the freedom to call out this bumper sticker, supermarket stand attempt at science, for what it is.

Do we really want a debate here or gossip about what someone's seen scrawled on a wall somewhere?

[Zarathustra]

Finn, you continue to attack the source rather than the content. If it's not scientific, then it ought to be very easy for you to disprove with some science.

So go ahead. Prove how an increasing greenhouse effect can raise temperatures when the level of heat is escaping to space remains unchanged. Here's a hint: that escaping heat is precisely what you'd need to heat the planet. The theory isn't Spacial Warming. It's global warming. So if the same amount is leaving the globe as before, then how anyone claim that the greenhouse effect is trapping more heat?

Should be easy for you, since there's no science to it.

[finn]

You prove it cannot......you can't: why? Because you would not know how to any more than I would! So believe what you read and parrot it.

My proof is based simply on what I see................

There are a number of journals you and a few others keep posting from which are self acknowledged anti-AGW organs pedalling a political message. Even cursory examinations shows that they are cherry picking other articles and using this so-called evidence to formulate opinion pieces dressed up as hot scoops. You are posting opinion based upon other opinion based upon conjecture and you are then asking for it to be taken at face value as if it were an objective look at the science.

If you were posting something that was from a generally acknowledged middle of the road or even pro AGW piece then I'd think it worthwhile to look, but this stuff is merely you saying look these anti-AGW people agree with my anti AGW view here's another example of how right we all are. This is the internet equivalent to mob rule. There are pro AGW media but I have refrained from blanket quoting and posting because it makes no sense to just re-iterate and use someone else's words to shout your message. I mean how many ah-ha!s are there? If the articles are serious then why are they not being addressed to the scientists instead of braying to the gullible?

Stuff like this....

A key component of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been disproven.

..... this is simplty untrue...its a lie! Does anyone see hoards of scientists packing up their stuff and heading on home, tails between their legs? No. This type of stuff simply reduces the anti AGW argument to a clamour.

If the Anti AGW people had not taken over some peer review mechanisms and started peer reviewing stories by the pixies and LGM resulting in the majority of their editorial staff resigning, the peer review process might still have the credibility it once had. But dirty tricks, misrepresentation, spin and outright deceit seems to be the base level of argument here and Z you are prosthletizing conspiracy theory, junk science, and full on turd polishing which srves only to drown real debate between the people on the watch in favour of simply linking and merging this thread with an American Thinker forum.

I had said repeatedly that it is important that there is scepticism and that the data, the science and the debate be questioned at every stage, but the scepticism must be backed-up by solid questions and healthy scepticism; not smear, innuendo and psuedo-scientific nit-picking. This undermines the genuine, valid criticism and really represents the torch carrier crying witch at every twist and turn.

Frankly I've reallly had jack of it, I've asked several times and posted what I feel are compelling reasons to keep this within the bounds of discussion, but the volume of white noise is such that I'm hoarse trying to be heard above it. If you guys want to discuss this yourselves and not by proxy pieces by peopoe and jouirnals that have doen nothing to substantiate their credibility, I'm in. But this ongoing rain of crap?........Forget it!

[Zarathustra]

Finn, so you have absolutely zero scientific points to make about the content of the argument I presented? Instead, you have a string of slurs:

braying to the gullible
its a lie!
a clamour.
dirty tricks,
misrepresentation,
spin and outright deceit seems
prosthletizing conspiracy theory,
junk science,
full on turd polishing
smear,
innuendo
psuedo-scientific nit-picking.
torch carrier crying witch
rain of crap

Do you realize how hysterical, paranoid, and angry this sounds?

If you were posting something that was from a generally acknowledged middle of the road or even pro AGW piece then I'd think it worthwhile to look, but this stuff is merely you saying look these anti-AGW people agree with my anti AGW view here's another example of how right we all are.

You're only willing to look at something that either supports your opinion or doesn't outright contradict it??

I had said repeatedly that it is important that there is scepticism and that the data, the science and the debate be questioned at every stage, but the scepticism must be backed-up by solid questions and healthy scepticism;

I presented a solid question. According to the satellite data in three peer-reviewed articles (articles which actually ARE pro-AGW), there has been no change in the out-going IR radiation in the 36 years measured. That's either a fact, or it isn't. If it is a fact, then it undermines the theory of global warming due to increased greenhouse gasses.

If the article I presented used some faulty reasoning, why don't you just point it out? Instead of grabbing your thesaurus for more insults, you could expose the faulty reasoning (which you're sure is there without even looking, apparently).

Let me ask it a different way: if the same exact article appeared in a "middle of the road" or "pro-AGW" journal, would you still have the same objections? If so, then tell us what those objections are, or just admit that all you've got is a bunch of insulting rhetoric.

Again, if what I've posted is false, then tell me why. You can't keep using the "I don't like that website" argument, and then string together a bunch of insults and pretend that's a refutation.

[ParanoiA]

If our GHGs are increasing (and they are), and the temperature of the planet is increasing (well, that's the claim), then we're not talking about a one-time event that would show a temporary decrease in escaping heat, and then stabilize at this higher temperature. The amount of heat escaping to space would necessarily have to be decreasing; that energy has to come from somewhere.

If the out-going radiation is constant, then the temperature due to the greenhouse effect has to be constant, even granting you this hypothetical one-time rise. And if it's constant, then there is no crisis. We're supposed to be worrying about a continuing rise, extending to the future. (However, as Orlion pointed out, it can be rising for other reasons not related to increased GHGs. But even Phil Jones admitted that there has been no global warming for 15 years.)

First of all, all of the above assumes a steady input energy – which funnily enough counters the anti-AGW argument of “cycles” they like to lean on so much. So where are the cycles if the radiation is constant? It seems the skeptics aren’t any better at producing sound theory than they claim of the advocates.

Second, Lindzen and Choi have already been debunked in their peer reviewed paper on using satellites to record radiation over the last 15 years. I provided an example of that for you in this very thread back in November of 2009, here:

That’s all nice and dandy, except for the fact that Lindzen’s paper contain a colossal (deliberate?) mistake :

He measured changes in Earth’s outbound radiation (using ERBE) and he found 4 W/m^2 change per C change in sea surface temperatures. Now that’s exactly what you would expect from Stephan Boltzmann equations for a system without feedback. So why did he conclude otherwise ?


The problem is here :
In his formula (and in Figure 3, pane 2) he assumes a feedback
factor of -1 if there is NO increase in short-wave radiation.

That is a very obvious mistake because no change in SW radiation means no feedback.

Or differently worded : he confused radiative ‘forcing’ with it’s effect (increase in black-body radiation).

This changes all the plots and graphs, since all numbers for SW and the ’slope’ for the models goes up by 4 W/m^2/C, essentially becoming in line with the ERBE observations.
More importantly, it changes the conclusion too, since there is now no measurable feeback.

The only thing that Lindzen could conclude from the ERBE/SST data is that he found no significant feedback on the short term, and that this is in line with model predictions.

However, now we have even better rebuttals and peer reviewed ones.
dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/a-rebuttal-to-a-cool-climate-paper/ - that one is waiting for Lindzen and Choi’s rebuttal. Just part of the process, so LC could recover still, but I doubt it.

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/ ... unraveled/ - this is a bit easier to read and understand the issues with Lindzen and Choi’s methods.

Lindzen and Choi have not proven anything about radiation for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is the feedback mechanism they entirely ignored in the math. And when you include them, it miraculously matches the results predicted by the AGW theory. You can’t ignore physics and expect to be correct about how the world works.

Of course, this is why I also said, back in November, that it’s a misleading and futile exercise to cite articles and fractionally educate yourself by cherry picking which article you happened to find and looked cool or sounded correct – unless you’re an expert, you’re basing your beliefs on irrational attachments to documents. For every article or document you think proves your view, I can mine a document or article that refutes it. It becomes a silly game of my favorite articles against your favorite articles, while both of us are too ignorant to distinguish the fact and fiction in them. They all sound “smart”. That’s not a measure of legitimacy or accuracy as anyone can sound smart.

But even Phil Jones admitted that there has been no global warming for 15 years.

No he didn’t. Here’s the whole interview for those who appreciate context.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming.

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Pay attention to what he’s saying here. If you’re not familiar with statistics and what “significance” means, range of error, then this is not common sense. This is why they look at long term trends, not short term ones as much. The shorter the term, the more problematic the error range is. That’s pure math.

In this case, you could draw a line with twice the slope (.24 c per decade) and it would have the same statistical significance as a zero slope line (0 c per decade). We could just as easily conclude there is TWICE the warming as we could say there is NO warming.

Phil has a golden opportunity to spin this as twice the warming using the same logic as the anti-AGW crowd, if he wanted. Instead, he sticks to science and has to accept that his measurement is too small over a really short time line and so he cannot responsibly conclude any statistically significant warming.

Statistics work better for the long term because we get further away from the range of error. That’s just math.



So, it's more of the same. Cherry picking statements out of context and getting excited about articles that say what we want to hear. Still no demonstration of valid distinction methodology. I'll stick with peer review and the debates that take place in academic context - scientists and experts arguing with scientists and experts.

Anything involving laymen drawing their own conclusions is worthless to me. All they have is emotional preference for one thing over another.

[Zarathustra]

First of all, all of the above assumes a steady input energy – which funnily enough counters the anti-AGW argument of “cycles” they like to lean on so much. So where are the cycles if the radiation is constant? It seems the skeptics aren’t any better at producing sound theory than they claim of the advocates.

No. Prior to the 1995-present period, the rise in temperature can be explained in (at least) two different ways. First, it's possible that more heat is being trapped by the atmosphere, but that means you'd see less heat leaving the atmosphere. Secondly, it's possible that more radiation is supplied by the sun, which could raise temps while the same amount was lost to space. A steady out-going IR radiation would be consistent with higher temps + more solar actitivity. I see no reason why increased solar activity should affect how well the atmosphere retains heat.

Second, Lindzen and Choi have already been debunked in their peer reviewed paper on using satellites to record radiation over the last 15 years.

The point I was making didn't rely upon their work.

Of course, this is why I also said, back in November, that it’s a misleading and futile exercise to cite articles and fractionally educate yourself by cherry picking which article you happened to find and looked cool or sounded correct – unless you’re an expert, you’re basing your beliefs on irrational attachments to documents.

I'm not basing my beliefs on any irrational attachment to anything. I never said that this one article represented my beliefs. I said that it was a serious question.

For every article or document you think proves your view, I can mine a document or article that refutes it.

I didn't say it proved my view.

But even Phil Jones admitted that there has been no global warming for 15 years.

No he didn’t. Here’s the whole interview for those who appreciate context.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming.

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Pay attention to what he’s saying here. If you’re not familiar with statistics and what “significance” means, range of error, then this is not common sense. This is why they look at long term trends, not short term ones as much. The shorter the term, the more problematic the error range is. That’s pure math.

You really think there's much difference between "Jones said there has been no warming" and "Jones said there was no statistically significant warming"?? If it is not statistically significant, it means the measured warming is smaller than the margin of error, which is the same as saying, "we can't show that there has been any warming." I don't care which one you pick. My statement didn't contradict what Jones said. We haven't measured any warming greater than the margin of error for 15 years.

So, it's more of the same. Cherry picking statements out of context and getting excited about articles that say what we want to hear. Still no demonstration of valid distinction methodology. I'll stick with peer review and the debates that take place in academic context - scientists and experts arguing with scientists and experts.

Please stop theorizing about my psychological responses. You have no idea what my level of excitement is, or what I want to hear. You are concluding too much from the fact that I posted an article.

And after all this, no one has refuted the original point I brought up with that article. My excitement, my gullibility, my wants, my dreams, my desires have been the focus of this conversation, but the point I brought up has remained untouched. I know I'm not an expert. I'm getting tired of other non-experts pointing out that I'm not an expert. If you're not an expert, either, then stop focusing on me.

I'll restate my unanswered question: if the satellites have measure no change in out-going IR radiation, then how can anyone sustain the claim that more heat is being trapped by the atmosphere?

[Avatar]

Good post ParanoiA.

--A

[ParanoiA]

I'm not basing my beliefs on any irrational attachment to anything. I never said that this one article represented my beliefs. I said that it was a serious question.

To be fair, I was discussing why I reject the method of propping up articles about complex scientific subjects that experts write because our only distinction can be to either conclude for ourselves which one is right or wrong - which is irrational and can only boil down to emotional appeal and bias. Or we can let the experts and scientists have this battle while we monitor the results and go with the majority conclusion. I choose the latter.

I didn't say it proved my view.

Again, not talking about Zarathustra. I was talking about why I reject the my article vs your article debate tactic that is only inevitable when we throw articles at each other written by experts that we cannot critique ourselves.

You really think there's much difference between "Jones said there has been no warming" and "Jones said there was no statistically significant warming"?? If it is not statistically significant, it means the measured warming is smaller than the margin of error, which is the same as saying, "we can't show that there has been any warming." I don't care which one you pick. My statement didn't contradict what Jones said. We haven't measured any warming greater than the margin of error for 15 years.

Uh, yes. There's a huge difference. Jones is answering about a mathematical reality of range of error. That's why he talked about the positive slope he calculated of .12 C per decade. You would rather him use that measurement and answer "Yes, I have seen warming"?

No, he sacrificed a spin opportunity that is ironically being spun by the anti-AGW crowd. How absolutely laughable.

The difference is, Jones is making a statement of agnosticism due to the laws of math, as opposed to a positive statement of "no warming". The anti-AGW crowd is purposely choosing to hear "no warming" in his answer.

That's a glaring difference. And it's the epitome of the GW debate.

Please stop theorizing about my psychological responses. You have no idea what my level of excitement is, or what I want to hear. You are concluding too much from the fact that I posted an article.

Sorry I wasn't clear. But again, I was speaking to this line of logic as shown in the article you posted by American Thinker.

[Zarathustra]

Uh, yes. There's a huge difference. Jones is answering about a mathematical reality of range of error.

It's more than an admission of a mathematical fact. Reality itself has shown no warming beyond our ability to meaningfully measure it. That is also a fact. The statistical insignificance in Jones's warming reveals more than a negative fact about mathematics, it also says a positive fact about the earth's temperatures during that time: any change in temperature has been too small to be meaningful. Statistically, there has been no change. We can say with confidence--with certainty--that beyond the threshhold of our ability to make meaningful statements about our observations, there has been no warming.

Sure, this has something to do with the short time scale. But it also has to do with an insignificant amount of warming (if any at all). If the earth were heating faster, we could measure it. There is nothing about math or thermometers which prevents this. It is entirely due to the scale of the warming (if any).

The "huge difference" you are describing is purely epistemological. It has to do with what we can know, and the limits of our ability to measure reality. In addition to this epistemological distinction, there is also the ontological fact that reality hasn't shown any warming great enough to rise above the level of this epistemological limit. My statement "there has been no warming" assumed our epistemological limits as a given. I have no expectation that Jones or any other human is going to produce results that render the issue of margin of error a moot point. My statement in no way implied the absence of epistemological limits, or a certainty that transcended these inherent limits. I accept that as a baseline, and go from there.

It's not a huge difference. By definition, it's a statistically insignificant difference.

[Vraith]

You really think there's much difference between "Jones said there has been no warming" and "Jones said there was no statistically significant warming"?? If it is not statistically significant, it means the measured warming is smaller than the margin of error, which is the same as saying, "we can't show that there has been any warming." I don't care which one you pick. My statement didn't contradict what Jones said. We haven't measured any warming greater than the margin of error for 15 years.

I think there's a big difference since he said "just barely."
What he's really saying is "evidence indicates some warming, but we're only 93% sure, not 95+ % sure." [I made up the 93, I don't know if that's the actual number...I'd bet it's more than 90, though]

I'll restate my unanswered question: if the satellites have measure no change in out-going IR radiation, then how can anyone sustain the claim that more heat is being trapped by the atmosphere?

The more I ponder this the more hopeful I get that I'm on to something: If you keep adding salt to boiling water, it can literally hold more heat: [if I throw it all in at once, there will be a sudden drop in radiated heat, that gradually rises again, if I dribble it slowly, not.] But the total energy out still equals the energy in from the flame. [if the water is the atmosphere, and salt is co2]. You can keep getting hotter water without changing energy in/out...just the amount of salt in it.

[ParanoiA]

It's more than an admission of a mathematical fact. Reality itself has shown no warming beyond our ability to meaningfully measure it. That is also a fact. The statistical insignificance in Jones's warming reveals more than a negative fact about mathematics, it also says a positive fact about the earth's temperatures during that time: any change in temperature has been too small to be meaningful. Statistically, there has been no change. We can say with confidence--with certainty--that beyond the threshhold of our ability to make meaningful statements about our observations, there has been no warming.

Sure, this has something to do with the short time scale. But it also has to do with an insignificant amount of warming (if any at all). If the earth were heating faster, we could measure it. There is nothing about math or thermometers which prevents this. It is entirely due to the scale of the warming (if any).

Dead wrong. To be clear, I'm talking to Zarathustra here. This is terribly flawed reasoning and you had to go way out of your way to settle on it. I'm absolutely shocked. It's simple.

Jones' statement about 15 years showing no statistical significance is not a statement of anything other than 15 years is too short to be measuring. THAT's what it means.

I mean really. To play with math and conjure up weak statements to ridicule science with is desparate at best. I suppose if we can't measure the speed of a moving vehicle inside a window of 120 micro seconds with a hand held stop watch, that means the car isn't moving? Give me a break. It means your measurement method contains more error than the window of opportunity. Nothing else.

If you don't understand statistics and significance and range of error then I wouldn't make arguments against them if I were you. The anti-AGW crowd will buy it all day long, but anyone remotely familiar with algebra will know they're idiots.

I think there's a big difference since he said "just barely."
What he's really saying is "evidence indicates some warming, but we're only 93% sure, not 95+ % sure." [I made up the 93, I don't know if that's the actual number...I'd bet it's more than 90, though]

No, it's got nothing to do with him saying barely. "Barely" was referring to his .12 C per decade increase in warming that he's responsibly applying the laws of math to realize that it's too small to place in any significance. You need a wider measurement than 15 years because the warming isn't enough to clear weather noise - however significant the warming may actually be.

Some may even want to conclude that because you can't measure anything statistically-significant in that timeframe that it must be too small to make any difference. But that's faulty logic because the "weather noise" value represents a significant enough warming on its own, if the warming were to simply stay right at the same level. It's a statement about how we can't be confident in a value considering the possible presence of another value - it's not a statement about really tiny things that don't matter.

It's truly insulting that he actually voluntarily ignores any opportunity to spin on his .12 C per decade increase while the anti-AGW crowd spins it themselves, the other way, while they (the spinsters) claim that Jones can't be trusted. Is this Southpark? Am I trapped in an episode where Matt and Trey demonstrate how ridiculous and hypocritical the activist-skeptics are?

[Zarathustra]

Dead wrong. To be clear, I'm talking to Zarathustra here. This is terribly flawed reasoning and you had to go way out of your way to settle on it. I'm absolutely shocked. It's simple.

Jones' statement about 15 years showing no statistical significance is not a statement of anything other than 15 years is too short to be measuring. THAT's what it means.

So if the warming had been larger, we couldn't measure it in that time period?

I mean really. To play with math and conjure up weak statements to ridicule science with is desparate at best.

Are you still speaking to me? Or is this another instance where you're talking about my pyschology, but then claim you're not in the next post? I'm not desperate. I didn't play with math. I didn't ridicule science. Now you're just making shit up about me.

I suppose if we can't measure the speed of a moving vehicle inside a window of 120 micro seconds with a hand held stop watch, that means the car isn't moving? Give me a break.

I said nothing of the sort. But now I understand your confusion, here. "The car moving" would be equivelant to "a long term trend of global warming." I made no long term conclusions from the 15-year period we're talking about. I only commented on that period. Of course, to be accurate in your analogy, we'd have to assume a car that is moving backward and forwards with regularity (to simulate the seasons, the days, etc.). And we'd have to assume that some parts of the car are moving at different rates and in different directions than other parts. So your example is overly simplistic, conjured up just to ridicule me, and it assumes the very issue in question: overall movement of the car from point A to point B (distinct from fluctuations in movement backwards and forwards about A). With these more realistic complications added into your analogy, it would be perfectly fine to say, "for this time period, we've observed no overall movement away from A, aside from the fluctuations back-and-forth around A, greater than our margin of error." Or, "the car hasn't, on average, moved closer to B." Now suddenly, my comment doesn't sound as stupid as you're trying to make it with your caricature.

It means your measurement method contains more error than the window of opportunity. Nothing else.

Not true. It also means that the temperature of the earth hasn't deviated by a large enough degree within that window to distinguish cooling from warming or even from staying the same. In other words, no measured warming.

If you don't understand statistics and significance and range of error then I wouldn't make arguments against them if I were you. The anti-AGW crowd will buy it all day long, but anyone remotely familiar with algebra will know they're idiots.

Well, you're not me. So stop telling me what you'd do if you were me. I'll continue to argue about whatever the fuck I want to, thank you.

Fifteen years is quite long enough to detect a variance in temperature. In fact, I can go outside right now and dectect a variance in temperature from one hour to the next (before you point it out, yes, I realize this isn't the average global temperature). Our measurement window isn't the problem. The problem is that the amount of purported warming is so small for this time period, that it is statistically insignificant. Does this mean that we can't tell if one year was warmer than the previous? Of course not. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to make claims like, "1998 was the warmest on record," without waiting 50 or 100 years to see if 1998 was in fact warmer than 1997. The overall longterm trend is the only thing we can't comment upon from that small timescale. But I'm not talking about the overall longterm trend. As I've said.

Are you saying that there is no 15 year period in the entire history of the earth that has a temperature change greater than our ability to measure?!? If not, then there's nothing special about this particular 15 year period, except the amount of temperature change. We are quite able to measure the difference between individual years. Between individual months. Individual days. For instance, we can say definitely that the entire northern hemisphere is MEASURABLY colder than it was 8 months ago. How the hell is that possible in such a short time?? Eight months is a mere 4% of 15 years, and yet somehow we can still make large-scale measurements about the temperature of the earth within that tiny time period well beyond the margin of error. It's not the window that's the problem. It's the amount of (purported) warming in that window.

[ParanoiA]

So if the warming had been larger, we couldn't measure it in that time period?

Sure we could. Or if the time period was longer. The warming observed was too small to clear the weather noise potential. If it's going to warm that gradual, you'll need a longer time period to measure it. If it's going to warm faster, you can do fine with shorter ones.

And yes, that gradual rate of warming that can barely distinguish itself from weather noise potential is still valid.

Are you still speaking to me? Or is this another instance where you're talking about my pyschology, but then claim you're not in the next post? I'm not desperate. I didn't play with math. I didn't ridicule science. Now you're just making shit up about me.

Yes I'm still speaking to you, as I stated clearly in my opener.

You played with the math like creationists play with evolution. You assume that if you can't measure a change greater than weather noise, it must not matter. YOU said that. I didn't make it up. That's an irresponsible statement that I'd like you to support.

Now suddenly, my comment doesn't sound as stupid as you're trying to make it with your caricature.

You misapplied my analogy. I was talking about the impossibility of being so perfect with a hand held stop watch that it could be accurate to within 120 microseconds. The margin of error for me to click a stop watch in sync with the perceived position of an object is much wider than 120 microseconds.

That's the kind of problem Jones is describing. The margin of error is too wide to be sure about the values. They could be right on. They could be just off a bit. They can't be used. (It's a stupid analogy anyway, I didn't even set it up right).

Are you saying that there is no 15 year period in the entire history of the earth that has a temperature change greater than our ability to measure?!? If not, then there's nothing special about this particular 15 year period.

Well I could suggest you start reading what I post, but you don't like that as evidenced by your temper tantrum above.

No, I believe I said, and am saying, that anytime the warming is smaller than the margin of error for a given range, then the range needs to be increased. It's that simple. This 15 year period was chosen because of Lindzen and Choi's ERBE data that created the dataset for the past 15 years of earth's radiation. I don't know anything special about it beyond that.

[Zarathustra]

Well I could suggest you start reading what I post, but you don't like that as evidenced by your temper tantrum above.

Look, you have been repeatedly condescending and insulting to me on this issue. I haven't gone into my familiarity with statistics because I didn't want to argue from a position of authority. I didn't think that was necessary. However, before I switched to philosophy, I was a physics major. I've had multiple classes in physics, chemistry, including multiple labs where we calculated standard deviation, margin of error, etc., and I've had four semesters of calculus. It's been many years, but I assure you I'm familiar with the concepts. I don't need you to tell me not to argue about something based on your ignorance of and assumptions about my education.

If you would just stick to the content of my posts, rather than critiquing me as a person and offering your "friendly" advice about what I should discuss, then I won't have to assert my right to talk about whatever I choose to talk about. In fact, that should be a given.

No, I believe I said, and am saying, that anytime the warming is smaller than the margin of error for a given range, then the range needs to be increased. It's that simple. This 15 year period was chosen because of Lindzen and Choi's ERBE data that created the dataset for the past 15 years of earth's radiation. I don't know anything special about it beyond that.

I believe that the period in question is "special" precisely because there is no statistically significant warming for that period!

Tell me this: is there any statistically significant warming for the period of 1980 to 1995? Why or why not?

[ParanoiA]

Ok, this is not what I signed up for. Go fuck yourself Z.